Mobile Enhancement Solutions LLC v. Apple Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Mobile Enhancement Solutions LLC. Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. (Filing fee $350; Receipt number 0539-4462846) Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas should seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information - Bar Membership (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6 Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Bumgardner, Brent)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MOBILE ENHANCEMENT SOLUTIONS
LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. ___
v.
APPLE, INC.; AT&T INC.; AT&T
MOBILITY LLC; VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS INC.; CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP INC. D/B/A VERIZON
WIRELESS; SPRINT NEXTEL
CORPORATION; AND SPRINT
SPECTRUM L.P.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Mobile Enhancement Solutions LLC files this Complaint against Apple, Inc.,
AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC; Verizon Communications Inc., CellCo Partnership Inc. d/b/a
Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corporation, and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (collectively,
“Defendants”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,096,033 (“the ’033 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
6,879,838 (“the ’838 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,317,687 (“the ’687 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
6,415,325 (“the ’325 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,148,080 (“the ’080 patent”), and/or U.S. Patent
No. 6,094,648 (“the ’648 patent”).
THE PARTIES
1.

Mobile Enhancement Solutions LLC (“MES”) is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with principal places of business
located in Newport Beach, California and Frisco, Texas.

1

2.

Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is a California corporation with a principal place of business

in Cupertino, California. This Defendant may be served with process through its registered
agent, CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Dallas, Texas 75201. This Defendant does
business in the State of Texas and in the Northern District of Texas.
3.

AT&T Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Dallas, Texas. This Defendant may be served with process through its registered agent, The
Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Northern
District of Texas.
4.

AT&T Mobility LLC (with AT&T Inc., “AT&T”) is a Delaware limited liability

company with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. This Defendant may be served
with process through its registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust
Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the
State of Texas and in the Northern District of Texas.
5.

Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business in New York, New York. This Defendant may be served with process through its
registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in
the Northern District of Texas.
6.

Cellco Partnership Inc. d/b/a Verizon Wireless (with Verizon Communications

Inc., “Verizon”) is a Delaware general partnership with its principal place of business in Basking
Ridge, New Jersey. This Defendant may be served with process through its registered agent, The
Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,

2

Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Northern
District of Texas.
7.

Sprint Nextel Corporation is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of

business in Overland Park, Kansas. This Defendant may be served with process through its
registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 200 S.W. 30th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66611.
This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Northern District of Texas.
8.

Sprint Spectrum L.P. (with Sprint Nextel Corporation, “Sprint”) is a Delaware

limited partnership with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.

This

Defendant may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. This Defendant
does business in the State of Texas and in the Northern District of Texas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.

MES brings this action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the

United States, namely 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, and 284-285, among others.
10.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1367.
11.

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and

1400(b). On information and belief, each Defendant is deemed to reside in this judicial district,
has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, has purposely transacted business in
this judicial district, and/or has regular and established places of business in this judicial district.
12.

Each Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal

jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to their
substantial business in this State and judicial district, including: (A) at least part of their

3

infringing activities alleged herein; and (B) regularly doing or soliciting business and,
accordingly, deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to Texas residents.
COUNT I
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,096,033)
13.

MES incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 herein by reference.

14.

MES is the assignee of the ’033 patent, entitled “Mobile Apparatus Enabling

Inter-Network Communication,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’033 patent,
including the right exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
infringement. A true and correct copy of the ’033 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
15.

The ’033 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with

Title 35 of the United States Code.
16.

Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, directly, contributorily,

and/or through the inducement of others, one or more claims of the ’033 patent in this judicial
district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States by or through their testing, making, using,
offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of Apple devices. Defendants have been, and now
are, directly infringing claims of the ’033 patent, including (for example) at least claims 1 and 3
through 8 of the ’033 patent, by or through their testing, making, using, offering for sale, selling,
and/or importing of Apple devices (e.g., the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and the new iPad
(a/k/a iPad HD)) that are configurable to communicate data received from a first communication
network (e.g., cellular network, WiFi network) to a second communication network (e.g., WiFi
network, cellular network). Additionally, Defendants have been and now are inducing and/or
contributing to direct infringement of claims of the ’033 patent, including (for example) at least
claim 9 of the ’033 patent, by end users of Apple devices (e.g., the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone

4

4S, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD)) that are configurable to communicate data received from a
first communication network (e.g., cellular network, WiFi network) to a second communication
network (e.g., WiFi network, cellular network) in accordance with Defendants’ instructions.
17.

Upon information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 16, including the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4,
iPhone 4S, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD), pursuant to one or more contractual agreements
between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple
and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
18.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 16, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S,
pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the
distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and Sprint are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
19.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale,

sell, and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 16, including the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S,
and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD), pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them
relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and Verizon
are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
20.

MES has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in

this Count I. Defendants are, thus, liable to MES in an amount that adequately compensates it
for Defendants’ infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together
with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

5

COUNT II
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,879,838)
21.

MES incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 herein by reference.

22.

MES is the assignee of the ’838 patent, entitled “Distributed Location Based

Service System,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’838 patent, including the right
exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true
and correct copy of the ’838 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
23.

The ’838 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with

Title 35 of the United States Code.
24.

Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, directly, contributorily,

and/or through the inducement of others, one or more claims of the ’838 patent in this judicial
district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States by or through their testing, making, using,
offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of Apple devices. Defendants have been, and now
are, directly infringing claims of the ’838 patent, including (for example) at least claims 1, 3, and
9 of the ’838 patent, by or through their testing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or
importing of Apple devices (e.g., the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad,
iPad 2, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD)) that provide location services and store location
information. Additionally, Defendants have been and now are inducing and/or contributing to
direct infringement of claims of the ’838 patent, including (for example) at least claim 1 of the
’838 patent, by end users of Apple devices (e.g., the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4,
iPhone 4S, iPad, iPad 2, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD)) that are configured to provide
location services and store location information in accordance with Defendants’ instructions.

6

25.

Upon information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 24, including the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone
3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad, iPad 2, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD), pursuant to one or
more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
devices.

Accordingly, Apple and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for

infringements described in this Count.
26.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 24, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S,
pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the
distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and Sprint are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
27.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale,

sell, and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 24, including the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S,
iPad 2, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD), pursuant to one or more contractual agreements
between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple
and Verizon are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for infringements described in this
Count.
28.

MES has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in

this Count II. Defendants are, thus, liable to MES in an amount that adequately compensates it
for Defendants’ infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together
with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

7

COUNT III
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,317,687)
29.

MES incorporates paragraphs 1 through 28 herein by reference.

30.

MES is the assignee of the ’687 patent, entitled “Transmitting Data Frames with

Less Interframe Space (IFS) Time,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’687 patent,
including the right exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
infringement. A true and correct copy of the ’687 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
31.

The ’687 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with

Title 35 of the United States Code.
32.

Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, directly, contributorily,

and/or through the inducement of others, one or more claims of the ’687 patent in this judicial
district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States by or through their testing, making, using,
offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of Apple devices. Defendants have been, and now
are, directly infringing claims of the ’687 patent, including (for example) at least claims 1 and 5
of the ’687 patent, by or through their testing and/or using of Apple devices that communicate
information over a data network (e.g., an 802.11 network) using reduced interframe spacing
(RIFS) (e.g., the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad, iPad 2, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD)).
Additionally, Defendants have been and now are inducing and/or contributing to direct
infringement of at least claims 1 and 5 of the ’687 patent by selling or otherwise providing to end
users Apple devices that communicate information over a data network (e.g., an 802.11 network)
using reduced interframe spacing (RIFS) (e.g., the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad, iPad 2, and the
new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD)).

8

33.

Upon information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 32, including the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad,
iPad 2, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD), pursuant to one or more contractual agreements
between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple
and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
34.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 32, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S,
pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the
distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and Sprint are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
35.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale,

sell, and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 32, including the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S,
iPad 2, and the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD), pursuant to one or more contractual agreements
between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple
and Verizon are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for infringements described in this
Count.
36.

MES has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in

this Count III. Defendants are, thus, liable to MES in an amount that adequately compensates it
for Defendants’ infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together
with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
COUNT IV
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,415,325)
37.

MES incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 herein by reference.

9

38.

MES is the assignee of the ’325 patent, entitled “Transmission System with

Improved Synchronization,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’325 patent, including
the right exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future
infringement. A true and correct copy of the ’325 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
39.

The ’325 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with

Title 35 of the United States Code.
40.

Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon have infringed and continue to infringe,

directly, contributorily, and/or through the inducement of others, one or more claims of the ’325
patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States by or through their
testing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of Apple devices. Defendants
Apple, AT&T, and Verizon have been, and now are, directly infringing claims of the ’325 patent,
including (for example) at least claim 7 of the ’325 patent, by or through their testing, making,
using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of Apple devices (e.g., the new iPad (a/k/a iPad
HD)) configured to operate on a communication network (e.g., an LTE network) and extract a
timing signal from data communicated over the network. Additionally, Defendants Apple,
AT&T, and Verizon have been and now are inducing and/or contributing to direct infringement
of at least claim 1 of the ’325 patent by selling or otherwise providing Apple devices (e.g., the
new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD)) configured to operate on a communication network (e.g., an LTE
network) and extract a timing signal from data communicated over the network.
41.

Upon information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 40, including the new iPad (a/k/a iPad HD),
pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the

10

distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and AT&T are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
42.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale,

sell, and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 40, including the new iPad (a/k/a iPad
HD), pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the
distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and Verizon are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
43.

MES has been damaged as a result of Apple’s, AT&T’s, and Verizon’s infringing

conduct described in this Count IV. Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon are, thus, liable to
MES in an amount that adequately compensates it for their infringements, which, by law, cannot
be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35
U.S.C. § 284.
COUNT V
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,148,080)
44.

MES incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 herein by reference.

45.

MES is the assignee of the ’080 patent, entitled “Mobile Telephone with

Amplified Listening,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’080 patent, including the
right exclude others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A
true and correct copy of the ’080 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
46.

The ’080 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with

Title 35 of the United States Code.
47.

Defendants have infringed and continue to directly infringe one or more claims of

the ’080 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States by or

11

through their testing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of Apple devices.
Defendants have been, and now are, directly infringing claims of the ’080 patent, including (for
example) at least claims 6 and 9 of the ’080 patent, by or through their testing, making, using,
offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of Apple devices, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone
4S.
48.

Upon information and belief, Apple and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 47, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S,
pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the
distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and AT&T are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
49.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Sprint test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,

and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 47, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S,
pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the
distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and Sprint are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
50.

Upon information and belief, Apple and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale,

sell, and/or import Apple devices described in paragraph 47, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone
4S, pursuant to one or more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the
distribution and sale of such devices. Accordingly, Apple and Verizon are jointly, severally, or
alternatively liable for infringements described in this Count.
51.

MES has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in

this Count V. Defendants are, thus, liable to MES in an amount that adequately compensates it

12

for Defendants’ infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together
with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
COUNT VI
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,094,648)
52.

MES incorporates paragraphs 1 through 51 herein by reference.

53.

MES is the assignee of the ’648 patent, entitled “User Interface for Document

Retrieval,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’648 patent, including the right exclude
others and to enforce, sue and recover damages for past and future infringement. A true and
correct copy of the ’648 patent is attached as Exhibit F.
54.

The ’648 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with

Title 35 of the United States Code.
55.

Apple has infringed and continues to infringe, directly, contributorily, and/or

through the inducement of others, one or more claims of the ’648 patent in this judicial district
and elsewhere in Texas and the United States. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to
directly infringe, for example, at least claims 1 and 2 of the ’648 patent by or through its testing,
making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of devices and/or software that provide
a search interface that includes a relevance, or rank, indicator (e.g., devices that include Apple
Mail).

Additionally, Apple has been and now is inducing and/or contributing to direct

infringement of at least claims 1 and 2 of the ’648 patent by selling or otherwise providing to end
users devices and/or software that allow users to perform a search that returns a relevance, or
rank, indicator (e.g., a search performed using Apple Mail).
56.

MES has been damaged as a result of Apple’s infringing conduct described in this

Count VI. Apple is, thus, liable to MES in an amount that adequately compensates it for Apple’s

13

infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
JOINDER OF PARTIES
57.

MES incorporates paragraphs 1 through 56 herein by reference.

58.

On information and belief, each of AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have purchased or

otherwise obtained from Apple devices for sale, resale, and/or distribution to their customers that
are the subject of Counts I, II, III, IV, and/or V. Thus, for these Counts, the right to relief against
AT&T, Verizon, and/or Sprint is asserted jointly, severally, or in the alternative against Apple.
59.

The alleged infringement of counts I through V arises out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the testing, making, using,
offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of the Apple devices that are the subject of Counts I
through V.
60.

Questions of fact common to all defendants will arise in this action including, for

example, infringement by Apple devices.
61.

Thus, Joinder of Apple, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint is proper in this litigation

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299(a).
JURY DEMAND
MES hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
MES requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendants, and that the Court
grant MES the following relief:
a.

Judgment that one or more claims of the ’033, ’838, ’687, ’325, ’080, and ’648
patents have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of
equivalents, by one or more Defendants;

b.

Judgment that Defendants account for and pay to MES all damages to and costs
incurred by MES because of Defendants’ infringing activities and other conduct
complained of herein;

c.

Judgment that Defendants account for and pay to MES a reasonable, on-going,
post-judgment royalty because of Defendants’ infringing activities and other
conduct complained of herein;

d.

That MES be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
caused by Defendants’ infringing activities and other conduct complained of
herein; and

e.

That MES be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper under the circumstances.

Dated: March 15, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
Brent N. Bumgardner
Texas State Bar No. 00795272
Attorney-in-Charge
Edward R. Nelson, III
Texas State Bar No. 00797142
Ryan P. Griffin
Texas State Bar No. 24053687
NELSON BUMGARDNER CASTO, P.C.
3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Mobile Enhancement Solutions LLC
15